Talk:HIP 78530 b

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HIP 78530 b/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MadCow257 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes to address:

"It was observed as early as 2000, but the object was not confirmed as one in orbit of the star HIP 78530 until a direct imaging project photographed the star in 2008 caught the attention of astronomers, who then proceeded to follow up on their observations."

Which astronomers?

I've tried to clarify it a bit. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Upper Scorpius association

could link to Scorpius-Centaurus Association since the article has several red links. Also Upper Scorpius association is linked twice in this article

I redirected the page and removed the second wikilink. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"They team did not follow up on this."

Spelling error

It has been dealt with. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"NIRI camera and ALTAIR"

since these links can't be followed, it would be nice to know what they stand for

I've tried to work something out. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources 2 & 3 in this article are the same aren't they?

Not exactly. The ArXiv abstract (ref 3) on the paper (ref 2) has some information that the paper itself does not. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Follow-up imaging took place on July 2, 2009 and August 30, 2010 using the same instruments as astronomers hoped to reveal this companion object's proper motion"

Needs comma

 Done --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"0.005 gigayears (200,000 years)"

Not sure if it is normal to not just use Myr here, also isn't that actually 5 million years?

Thanks for catching that one :) I think it was just a gross misinterpretation on my part. In terms of the Gyr vs. Myr issue, I took it from this source. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"HIP 78530 b is most likely a brown dwarf, a massive object that is, in this case, large enough to fuse deuterium (something that planets are too small to do) but not large enough to ignite and become a star."

needs comma

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you tell me where? (On a side note, I removed "in this case" to tighten to prose) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I misread it, but the removal helped anyways. MadCow257 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"at an estimated average distance of 710 AU,[1] which is 710 times the average distance between the Earth and the Sun"

This is redundant

I've never seen AU as something immediately clear to most readers, so I tried to define it in the article. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"In accordance with the data, HIP 78530 b would complete an orbit approximately every 12,000 years, although the actual orbital motion of HIP 78530 b is most likely smaller than 710 AU, although it has not been directly observed by astronomers over the necessarily long time periods.[2]"

Although is used twice ackwardly. I recommend to write the end of the sentence as something like: ", but it has not been directly observed long enough to know definitively"

Good idea. I'll implement it in a sec. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is HIP 78530 b used instead of 78530B as in the original paper?

Excellent question. I honestly am not sure; I took partially from this source, and I also followed the lead of other, pre-existing Wikipedia articles. The "78530B" form is standardized on pretty much all scientific papers on exoplanets. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Its effective temperature is estimated at 10500 K,[1] over twice the effective temperature of the Sun."

5780x2 = 11560 > 10500 so it is less than twice

Good catch. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, are there any images that can be used such as this: http://exoplanet.hanno-rein.de/data/data_images/HIP%2078530.weblarger.png? I know the planet is barely visible but it could still enhance the article

I actually wanted to use that image, but I wasn't sure of its copyright status (the publishers don't work for NASA, so it probably isn't in the public domain). On other articles, I've used supporting pictures of observatories and the like. I'll add those in now. What do you think? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is my first GA review MadCow257 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not bad, for a first GA review. My first ones were far less detailed, so I am happy to see you off to a good start. :) If you'd like help on reviewing future articles, feel free to give me a shout. I'd be happy to help. In any case, let me know if you have any other comments on this review. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Approved

The prose reads well and is sourced. Page is stable and looks good with the image and box. Good job. MadCow257 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)